Federation Commander

pinecone · Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject:

Why doesn't the klink just fire before he gets to critical range, threatening the fed, and forcing a HET?

ShockRocket · Lieutenant JG Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 26

TJolley · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 284

Wow, go away for a weeks vacation and look what happens.

After reading the threads, I still am baffled as to why EM is being changed as it was not broken to begin with, even considering Paul Scotts tactic, but if you are going to change EM, why not just make ALL EM declarations occur at the beginning of an impulse? You drop EM or declare the start of EM at the beginning of an impulse. EM stops or starts before movement occurs.

This would alleviate the perceived 'screwing over the DF races' as they will have 4 sub-pulses of movement to either close or open the range, and stop the perceived problem of Plasma chuckers being able to uncloak/launch/and EM.

Excepting single ship duels, any Rom who uses this tactic will probably be losing 1 ship at least, as every drone on the Fed ships (Or Klingon, or Kzin) will be concentrated on (probably) one Romulan ship that is poking along at speed 16 and can't defend itsself, so why the uncloak/launch/EM is considered a problem is beyond me...he uncloaks and launches, I unload a barrage of drones and destroy a ship, and I turn off to run the plasmas out..then return with my still-held OL'd photons and full-strength fleet to a Romulan fleet down 1 ship..I'll repeat that pattern all day and win many more times than not...and logistics is happy, as I won't need to have my ship resupplied with as many photon torpedoes Smile

Bolo_MK_XL · Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject:

Patrick Doyle · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: EM Proposal, An Additional Fix

I have played a couple games now under the new EM system. As long as EM is being fixed, I have an additional proposal.

I propose that you keep the requirement to maintain evasive for 2 impulses as it is now, BUT, that if EM is continued over the turn break that time under Evasive Maneuvering from the previous turn counts toward that requirement. (you still have to pay 6 movement cost on turn x, and then an additional 6 movement on turn x+1).

Currently, if you continue evasive over the turn break (ie you paid for EM during energy Allocation), you are still STUCK being evasive until the beginning if impulse 3 (you were evasive during the movement portion of Imp 1and 2, thus you can cancel on impulse 3). This is a tactically difficult position to be in, especially when you might be in a situation where you only needed to be evasive during impulse 1 and want to cancel it at the beginning of Impulse 2.

The new EM rule is all about properly planning your use of evasive maneuvers. Time spent in evasive over the turn break should count toward that planning. Under the current rules, you are punished for being in situation where you need to be evasive during impulse 1, but not impulse 2, and the current rules allow no relief from this problem. (Yes I just played a game where this was a significant problem.)

(The example in the rules is that you announce evasive on impulse 3, and then you cannot cancel evasive until the beginning of impulse 6)
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Bolo_MK_XL · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:09 am Post subject:

Solution to every issue not involving a weapon ----

Start during Energy allocation ------

mjwest

Patrick Doyle · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:21 am Post subject:

Mike,
That is great hear, I think it is a necessary change. (PS- I didn't realize it had already been posted.)

Pat
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Kang · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject:

I'd second that proposal, guys. Good thinking. In my opinion, the turn break is a very artificial [although, I grant, necessary] line in the sand that needed to be lost during the port from SFB, as far as possible.
_________________

DNordeen · Commander Joined: 05 Apr 2007 Posts: 545

What it really comes down to is a matter of fairness and balance.

If someone got caught by the Kzintis, Lyrans, Gorns, Roms, or Klingons at range 4, declaring EM would be a death sentence.

Same "save me I f'd up" tactic against a Fed, Hydran, Selt, or Thol and you get off scot free.

From the otherside...

Closing with the Kzintis, Gorns, Roms, Klingons, Lyrans, etc., Does he have enough power for EM? Who cares, he tries it and he's a dead man.

Closing with the Feds, Hydran, Selt, or Thol...I better think of a way to deal with his EM or I'll never be able to hit him at all the entire game.

Why should some races be punished for a rule that is death against other races? The rules should affect each races as fairly as possible. If everyone can use a rule to invalidate all firepower of certain races, people will stop playing them..."It's harder to win because he EMs whenever I get close to him. Guess, I'll just play Kzinti or Lyran instead so I can hammer him if he gets to close and EMs."

Think about the disruptor-leak rule against Andros. If that rule wasn't present to balance Andros against disruptors, the Andro would be unbalanced against disruptor races. Same with EM. It should be balanced for all races and not hinder some while benefiting others.

Lastly, SFB did not allow for this situation. The adjusted rule more closely aligns with the original SFB rule. All comments about this not being SFB are really just distractions on this one. FC is based on SFB, and the rules should align as closely as possible to avoid unbalancing the game by accident (which is what happened with the original EM rule).
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory